Linux vs. Windows

I'm guessing that I'll be starting a new flame war with this topic, but I still decided to open the issue for discussion. It must be in my nature to cause trouble

Anyway, has anyone ever actually wondered the eternal hate that Linux/Unix users have for Windows? I must say that although I personally hate Microsoft, I still don't hate Windows. I think Windows is a fine OS (don't shoot me). It works well for everyday PC users, Office workers, and software development. Visual Studio (for example) is a fine piece of chunk. I actually made a notepad clone with it

The point being that there's a place for everything. Linux brakes boundries in servers and development, but it's not suited for everyday users (no matter what distrubution you have).

So I'd like to ask (holding a white flag) why is it with the overwhelming hatered for Windows?

I don't hate M$ Windows and I use it all the time (a Traditional Chinese win98SE) for my desktop environments.
When it comes to server stuffs, I would choose *BSDs all the way, over Linux. I don't hate Linux either but the ones who use it and running servers on it to me are not any smarter than those on M$'s nobrainers. The reason is so simple because there is a better alternative to Linux -- the BSDs.

Anyway, I use linux for both my desktop and server environments, but maintain an open mind about other platforms.

I never have stability or performance problems, and I only reboot my boxes when I want to. That being said,

About the idea that linux isn't ready for a desktop environment: I kind of agree, but mostly don't.

I don't think the barriers to using linux for a desktop are technical anymore: koffice does nearly everything you need with an office app, konqueror 2.2.x is beautiful, functional and intuitive and there are like a bajillion other free, stable apps out there.

I think the barriers now are related more to technical ability of the current crop of people in charge related to linux (e.g. little) and a companies fear that by using a different OS they will be potentially creating extra costs and cutting productivity.

The reason it's not used at home are simple: interia (people don't like to change, typically) gaming, hardware support, and installation.

Inertia is a social issue. If people's peers use linux, they will pick it up. That's not happening

Gaming and hardware support (including an easy install process) are improving all the time.

I still dual boot into Win98 (the last MS OS I'll buy) to game.

MS has just gotten a little too powercrazy for me, and think I'm much more productive on linux with the excellent new desktop systems.

To get my position clear for startes, I have the same set-up as Hero. A dual boot with a Win98 partition for gaming, and a GNU/Linux partition for everything else (Slackware 8, KDE 2). I also agree with his assertions about the suitability of GNU/Linux for desktop use - if you're willing to spend some time using it, figuring it all out, and getting it set-up nicely, it does everything you need to do in Windows (except games) and often better.

Gaming wise, they are getting there. www.freeciv.org has had myself and a friend hooked for a week now!

As for the hatred of Windows, I think that stems from three things. For starters, compared to GNU/Linux, *BSD, OSX etc. it's very unstable and caused a lot of people endless hours of grief, so they grew to really despise it for all the pain it caused.

Secondly, people naturally resent the fact what Windows is so incredibly successful, and has so many games, when they're sat in GNU/Linux, no matter how superior an OS it is. This is imflamed by the number of l33t h4x0r idiots who have swamped the GNU/Linux community of late.

Thirdly, people hate Windows for ethical reasons. The reason that GNU/Linux has become so widly popular, and so good, is because of the lisencing and philosphy behind it - of community and sharing. The Linux kernel and associated GNU apps are all released under the GNU General Puclic Lisence, drawn up by GNU (also known as the Free Software Foundation), which decrees that all software users should be free to use the software they've bought/downloaded as they wish (so they can copy, modify and redistribute without restriction or cost). Windows stands for the complete opposite, and so people dislike it (and M$ even more) because of it.

These three factors, and doubltess endless others, contribute to the dislike that a lot of GNU/Linux users have for Windoze. I would have to say that only immature l33t h4x0rs really hate the OS though. Anybody with brains can see it's good points (ease of installation/use, well supported in companies, lots of good apps and games).

Ok, on the workstation side windows could be ok, but (and there is the but ) somehow there's almost no control over the system, almost all the config stuff is in binary format files and leaves not much choice to config the system without the gui config stuff, unless you're a pretty good register hacker. It's also pretty unstable, I do use win98se from time to time for gaming / audio and some financial stuff, but no more.

On my laptop which I use for work I have Suse 7.2 running, fast, stable and all the tools I need for my work. For the serverside it depends, for webbased stuff I use freebsd mostly and / or for heavily used machines. Otherwise I'd just use Linux which is pretty fine too (we've had linux machines with over 6000 websites on it running without any problems). Somehow I don't like MS server stuff, the gui takes away a lot of system resources which should be needed by the services instead of the gui, also an easy looking gui attracts people to servers they shouldn't use (yeah I know admins leaving consoles open) and fak up everything. Stability wise, it doesn't stand a chance against any unix/linux version.

And the thing I actually hate most about Microsoft is their aggressive way of working, shoving everything down your throat and just buying whatever stands in their way. They do use bsd code actually because they don't have to release bsd code , they can''t use linux code 'cause they'd have to release the code and they don't want to, so they start a fakking war on the linux community. Quote from Steve Balmer: "Linux is a cancer that destroys any intellectual property it gets near."

Overview

I was pretty impressed by the way people commented so I decided to comment myself. First, call me stupid, but what is l33t h4x0rs?

Second, I'd like to go out to defend Windows a little bit. Both telex4 and Hero Zzyzzx mentioned that they use Win98. That's okei, but it's not that realistic to be calling Windows so "unstable". Yes, it has it's drawbacks, but in the recent tests that we ran with Win2000 (when it was published) it proved to be about as stable as Linux (plus it seems they got rid of the typical blue error screen ). Win98 deserves to the barking but the newer versions are much better than that.

Okei, so lets look at Linux. Note that I've gathered my notes from what I read, hear, and have experienced personally. Linux really does have tons and tons again free apps. And I agree, the biggest step to go use Linux isn't technical but in the head. People have doubts about Linux 'cause it has, for a long time, been thought of as a OS for professionals. Now the community has been spending alot of time trying to brake that boundary. I think they have partionally succeeded.

But I still can't say that I'd recomend Linux for a average user, like my mom for example. Yeah you can use KDE but the world of Linux is still so much more diffecult then Windows. I think it's still for people who are really intrested in options and like using PCs. My mom would die if she tried it out.

I don't think GNU/Linux with KDE is quite ready for your mother if she's used to Windows, because of inertia and familiarity - it would just be too much bother for her, unless she's very motivated (in which case with time she could learn to love it). That will just be a matter of time I suppose - Redmond Linux looks promising on this front (nothing to do with M$, just situated in Redmond :-).

As for stability, you won't really notice the difference between GNU/Linux and say Win2k or WinXP until you stretch them and leave them going for weeks on end, and that's not anything to concern an average user. That said, you will notice the better memory management (you'll appreciate getting away with 64mb of RAM in GNU/Linux where you'd need 256 in WinXP!). You might also appreciate the configurability of GNU/Linux (and more so with *BSD) once you've used it for a while. You think Windows variants allow you to customise everything, but they really don't.

From the superficial (changing COMPLETELY the look and feel of KDE, down to the images used for title bars, buttons etc) to the useful (changing startup scripts in very detailed ways, way ahead of the "Start Up" folder), to the downright undispensible (kernel recompiles, loadable modules, config scripts), GNU/Linux and *BSD give you tonnes more control over their Windows competitors, once you take the time to learn them.

Oh and I almost forgot - the shell (how could one forget good ol' bash?). Imagine being able to, in one line, run a program which takes it's output and puts it into another program, which takes that output and put's it onto your screen. Plumbing in UNIX is a joy, especially just for sending text files to your sound card to hear the buzzing noises ;-)

I wouldn't knock Windows as a desktop for somebody who wants to browse the Web, do some programming, play some games (aside from ethical issues). But once you get GNU/Linux, and you learn to get the most out of the shell, X Windows and the massive support base on the Internet, you'll not reboot to Windows ever unless you play games. That said, I'm going to experiment running Counter Strike in WINE tomorrow - I've heard it's just about playable

l33t h4x0rs are immature idiots who think it's cool to crack into security systems, make innocent people's computers crash, write viruses, and do other things that give genuine hackers a bad name. They're typically under the age of 18, and have a mentality that is aggressive towards everything they don't use, and that makes them feel superior to everyone because of their l33t sk1llz. They also like to write illegibly using combinations of letters and numbers, so elite = l33t and hacker = h4x0r. They are the scourge of the Internet. Eugh.

Oh no, I ain't gonna start argue which one is better. I know I lose, no matter which side I take. But that wasn't actually the issue. What I trying to say, in my previous post, is that you need to be pretty motivated to learn handle linux, or BSD for that matter, properly and get the most out of it. This is the main thing that seperates Windows and the Unix platforms. Windows is also for those who don't have The motivation nor the intrest to start with the complicated idea of unix. But just wanna use mouse.

Like they say, make things click.

I'm very aware of the fact that Windows is not so much into, letting you configure it. That might not even the best thing for it. After all, all sorts of beginners and everyday users use Windows. And if you give them buttons to push, that would configure the system, you'd have a few million people screaming for help 'cause the system wont start. In Linux it's different. Only those with primary skill and experience like to use it, who understand the risks and take it slow.

I, and I think I speak for the others in this thread thus far, do not claim that GNU/Linux is "better" for everyone than Windows. I think we'd generally claim that it is "technically superior", and you seem to agree on that point. In fact, we all seem in complete agreement (aside from freebsd's *bsd whoring ;-) ).

I would just add that at the moment, GNU/Linux isn't suitable for your mum because of the lack of motivation. But hopefully in time that barrier will dissappear and people will get the benefits of true freedom from Free Software.

Yeah I do agree on that Linux, although I do not a lot of its internal functionalities, is technically superior to Windows. I wasn't after making claims when I posted this message. I rare even make claims, 'cause I often proof myself an idiot when doing so. But I don't always agree with the popular statement, "when you get into linux, you never boot to Windows again, unless to game". I like to keep an open mind and I can still find a millions things that I can do with Windows.

missing the point...

I think the developers are missing the a critical portion of the Microsoft audience, the layperson. The layperson doesn't have the time or desire to get into understanding anything technical, they want to hit the ground running and be productive. From sending email at work to getting images from your digital camera to the web at home, productivity in this case isn't limited to a cubicle where people use Lotus Notes, surf the corp. Intranet and make some PowerPoint presentations, I'm talking about automation and ease of use.

I believe a large part of the problem lies in communication. Communication the noun, not the verb. Linux developers don't have this layperson in mind, Microsoft does. MS has the funds, the writers, graphic designers and programmers working together with the marketing and advertising people who all consult with the user interface, information architecture and physchology and sociology experts; their team is *stacked* and they understand the idea of cross-training. Their enterprise is complex as hell. If linux hopes to conquer a large market then some cross-pollination needs to happen. Just as in my area of interest, the web, when you make a product simply knowing HTML doesn't make you a good author or designer, you simply know HTML. One needs to do some serious cross-training in language and writing, graphic design, information design, psychology and sociology. Good products cannot be produced without a well cross-trained team.

I'm definitly not knocking linux, the OS has a place and is definitly on the rise, but some things aren't there. People want to feel safe about their software, Microsoft is a company, you can own stock, receive an annual report and curse Bill Gates all at the same time, but those are physical connections to their brand. Linux is abstract and virtual, that's difficult for people to grasp. Would you drive a car knowing the car was made the way linux is? When you buy your Honda, you buy into the brand and things associated with this brand, one of which is a history and confidence that goes with this history of doing good business with others.

Partnerships are also lacking, and perhaps this correlates with the point above, that is if linux could get some strong buy-ins from more solid organizations (IBM was great for this) they would have an association with a brand or brands and therefore gain some confidence from the layperson. The layperson trusts IBM but these large companies need to educate and hold hands; explain why linux can be trusted.

Applications aren't there. GIMP isn't Photoshop and the Corel suite is garbage. The macintosh would be my platform of choice if I could play counterstrike on it. Applications make the platform, Sony understands this with the Playstation 2, Microsoft can't keep pace just yet, they need applications for their platform just as linux needs real world apps. Cheap rippoffs are fine, hell, some are fantastic, but there are no substitutes for certain programs and their functionality (just about any piece of software made by Adobe.) People also don't like to change their paradigm, they are used to illustrator 8 so when version 9 comes out and changes things they are pissed! Granted evolution occurs over time. This piggybacks onto hardware support and drivers. If there are no true ADOBE POSTSCRIPT printer drivers for linux you have just eliminated every graphics professional in the entire world that gives a damn about print. Granted the Macintosh has this covered but if linux is to be all thing to all people they have a lot of ground left to cover.

Sorry for my tangential and fragmented comments, I'm late for something and I don't have time to proofread my writing... damn.